Skip to comments.The Clintons in the War on Women
Posted on 02/11/2014 1:26:03 PM PST by Kaslin
Do Americans want another Clinton in the White House? As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flirts with running in 2016, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also a potential White House candidate, has put an interesting spin on Bill Clinton's White House years. Democrats shouldn't accuse the GOP of waging a "war on women," he recently told "Meet the Press," because President Clinton was a "sexual predator" with former intern Monica Lewinsky.
The next skirmish in the war on the war on women came from the Washington Free Beacon, which reported on papers archived at the University of Arkansas Libraries by Diane Blair, a deceased political science professor and close friend of Hillary's. According to Blair's notes, in 1998, the then first lady told her friend that her husband's relations with Lewinsky -- a "narcissistic loony toon" -- represented "gross inappropriate behavior," but it was "consensual," as in "not a power relationship."
One of the uglier archived documents is a 1992 campaign memo written by attorneys Nancy McFadden, now chief of staff to California Gov. Jerry Brown, and Loretta Lynch, president of the California Public Utilities Commission from 2000 to 2002. Under the heading "Defensive Research: Tying up ends and seeing ahead," the memo's first item no doubt referred to Gennifer Flowers, who said she had an affair with Bill Clinton: "Exposing GF: completely as a fraud, liar and possible criminal to stop this story and related stories, prevent future non-related stories and expose press inaction and manipulation."
Six years later, President Clinton admitted under oath to having had sex with Flowers, so it turns out Flowers wasn't the "liar" in this little tale. Didn't matter. With both Flowers and Lewinsky, Clinton operatives' first impulse was to smear the women as liars.
Longtime Clintonista Lanny Davis bashed Paul for "attacking Hillary Clinton for Bill Clinton's conduct."
So much for the 1992 campaign slogan of a Clinton candidacy's offering "two for the price of one." Ditto Hillary Clinton's role as Bill Clinton's chief enabler; remember how she dismissed the Lewinsky scandal as the product of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
It's "old news," Davis told me. Veteran GOP strategist Ken Khachigian, however, pointed out that accusations of "inappropriate behavior" in the 1990s torpedoed Herman Cain's presidential aspirations in 2012. There ought to be the "same standard" for both parties.
And don't get me started with Mitt Romney's famed 1983 ride with the family dog on the roof.
Paul's remarks may well backfire. If anything, the Lewinsky saga seemed to prop up President Clinton's favorable poll ratings.
But you have to give Paul this much: He rightly pointed out the chasm between how Clinton Democrats treat women as an interest group and how they treat them as people. When Bubba strayed, only the women paid.
The McFadden-Lynch memo serves as a reminder of what the Clinton machine does to women who speak out. They become loose ends who need to be tied up.
When Clinton is criticized, the Democrats react as if acid is being slowly dripped on their brain. Rand Paul seems to be effective with this technique.
I never knew that the dog on the roof incident dated to 1983. That should put to rest any claims of old news by Democrats defending Hillary.
Hillary’s behavior will spun by supporters as standing by her man to protect what hers, her marriage and her career.
But, I thought that feminists have told us that you do NOT stand by your man like Tammy Wynette. Feminists do NOT put up with any behavior your man dishes out, and put up with it like a doormat. So how can Hillary’s defenders say she was standing by her man to protect her marriage and career?
1. Per feminists, you don’t put up with bad behavior from a man. You are supposed to be strong and confront him, not be a doormat.
2. Per feminists, a woman’s career has nothing to do with her marriage. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle and all that.
Of course none of the rules seem applicable to Democrats...
Bill has always been attracted to the type.
The model changes with the individual. This time standing by her man was protecting her investment in her own career and showing deep resolve and determination.
The newly released documents report that Hillary admitted that she blamed herself for not being as good a wife as she could have been and not understanding the pressure that Bill was under from the Republicans. So, you see, even then Hillary was really standing by her man, while blaming his detractors for causing him so much stress that he was more susceptible to the attentions from wily women looking to steal him from her.
The Lewinsky Affair crushed the feminists' credibility on these issues; their response to Clinton's behavior was epochal FAIL, and the People noticed.
They still have power, like the Soviet Communist Party in 1988, but they have no cred any more. They're dead.
Still to come out: The entire feminist movement was a Communist strategic play to divide and overcome the People of the United States by isolating (see Alinsky) the people who were driving the country: straight white Christian males.
The Democrats have moved on from the Republican war on women, that was too tightly tied to Obamacare. The new mantra is the Republican war on the poor. I know, i have already been receiving emails with the mantra from MoveOn.org.
I counter with the Obama and Democrat war on the Middleclass. It is actually easier to prove than the Republcian war on the poor and Obamacare is the center of the war on the Middle Class.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising Americas real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
I remember clearly how all of the women's groups and most Democrats were willing to look the other way after is was clear that Bill Clinton had dropped his pants for and groped the female staff. Apparently, Monica Lewinski was the only woman to accept is “offer.” Maybe there were others?
Oh yes, he tried to use is influence as President to manipulate the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial. Remember the talking points?
So, ol Billy Clinton had his own war on women which apparently is acceptable with the Democratic rank and file.
One word: hypocrites.
They played a really large role — especially Willie!
Thanks, K, for the bump!
It goes so far beyond Flowers and Lewinski, though. Clinton has raped at least three different women and sexually molested dozens of others. He should be a registered sex offender.
I wonder how she was not as good a wife to Bill as she should have been. Did she drive her man into the arms of Monica? of Gennifer? of Paula? of Kathleen?... She must have been mighty deficient.
Bill reportedly told Gennifer Flowers that “Hillary’s eaten more p***y than I have.”
It’s well known in Washington that Hillary swings both ways but prefers other women.